What is Liberty Worth?

How dependency on federal dollars is killing local control — and our future

May 21, 2025

What if you were offered 19 cents to give up your town’s liberty—would you take it?

That’s the question Catherine Austin Fitts wants Americans to consider. In a May 2025 interview with Tucker Carlson, the former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development explained what she calls the “19-cent problem”—a hidden but devastating trade-off between federal funding and local freedom.

For every dollar sent to Washington D.C. in taxes, communities often receive $1.19 in return. On paper, it looks like a deal. But Fitts warns: That extra 19 cents is bait. Federal money comes with federal strings—mandates, compliance rules, and ideological conditions that slowly dissolve local decision-making. Over time, this dynamic hollows out constitutional governance and replaces it with soft tyranny.

Of course, in Washington state, we can observe the same problem from accepting state Department of Commerce grants for our health districts, housing authorities, schools, and other state-supported services. There’s no such thing as a “free lunch”; there are always strings attached.

The 19-Cent Trap

Catherine Austin Fitts describes this trap as part of a “financial coup” that began in the 1990s. Instead of sending tanks or troops, the federal government uses grants and subsidies to impose top-down control. Communities don’t need to be conquered—they’re simply bought. And once they’re bought, they comply.

This financial leverage is paving the way for even greater control mechanisms—like Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)—that could be used to monitor and even restrict financial behavior. What looks like support is actually surveillance. What feels like assistance is actually a leash.

Carlson asked the right question: Why are we letting this happen? The answer is chilling in its simplicity—because we’ve been trained to chase money instead of defending liberty.

Job Corps: A Case Study in Federal Failure

The dangers of federal dependency are not theoretical. They’re visible in programs like Job Corps, a federal program created to serve low-income youth through residential job training. In practice, it became a cautionary tale.

A 2017 report from the Government Accountability Office revealed the truth: Job Corps centers were plagued by violence, drug abuse, and unsafe conditions. Of all violent incidents—including assaults and sexual assaults—72% of the victims were students themselves. Despite its high cost per graduate, the program delivered poor outcomes and failed to protect the vulnerable population it was designed to serve.

Recognizing this, the Trump administration proposed eliminating Job Corps entirely, describing it as a failed experiment. This decision wasn’t just about dollars and cents—it was about acknowledging the rot that sets in when programs grow too large, too distant, and too disconnected from local accountability.

Federal programs rarely shrink. They metastasize. And once a community becomes dependent, cutting the cord—no matter how toxic the program—becomes politically dangerous.

Washington state has three Job Corp Civilian Conservation Centers. They are Columbia Basin in Moses Lake, Fort Simcoe in White Swan and the Curlew Job Corp in Ferry County. Curlew Job Corps is one of Ferry County’s best employers with a significant number of high-paying government jobs. The Curlew students provide over $1.2 million in benefit to our county from firefighting and other services.

Our small, rural community will take a large and painful financial hit when (or if) this program is cut. It won’t just impact the employees and students; it will impact the entire community.

Suddenly the idea of budget cuts becomes very personal. How big of a sacrifice are you willing to make to help cut the federal budget deficit? How big of a sacrifice will the local community have to make?

Rural America’s Quiet Surrender

Small towns and counties with limited tax bases often rely on state and federal grants for basic needs: roads, hospitals, public safety, and schools. But this money doesn’t come without baggage. It brings mandates—DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies, gender ideology requirements, environmental restrictions, and more.

Local leaders face impossible choices: Accept the funding and compromise their community’s values, or reject the funds and risk financial collapse. In most cases, they accept the funds—and the strings.

This creates a cycle of silent submission. Residents may never see the fine print, but they feel the results: Their rural towns start looking more like Seattle than the communities they grew up in. School boards are forced to adopt policies they don’t agree with. Local governments promote programs they didn’t ask for. And opposition becomes too expensive to maintain.